9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 1058X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent Directorate : Mr. Vipul Kundalia, Mr. Anurag Roy, Ms. U. Ali, Ms. Aditi Singhania. JUDGMENT SHAMPA DUTT (PAUL), J.: 1. The present revision has been preferred praying for quashing of proceedings in Case No. C-2481/2002 pending before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate, 11th Court, Calcutta under Sections 56 and 68 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. 2. The petitioner's case is that the complaint was filed by the opposite party on 31st May, 2002. 3. That in the complaint, ITC Limited (hereinafter referred to as the Company ), a company within the meaning of the Companies Act, 2013 having its registered office at 37, J.L. Nehru Road, Kolkata 700 071(hereinafter referred to as the Company ) was arraigned as Accused no. 1 and the petitioner herein was arraigned as accused no. 7. 4. The complaint was filed for alleged contravention of Section 8(1) and 9(1)(a) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) by the Company under Section 56 of the Act. 5. The petitioner and other individuals working for the Company were made vicariously liable for the alleged contravention of the Act by the Company by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ent Directorate exonerating the Company and all the individual noticee on merit in the SCM (civil proceeding), quashed the criminal Complaint in respect of the company alone who was the sole petitioner in CRR 1891 of 2004, which was initiated on the same allegations as those in the SCM. By a Judgment dated 28th February, 2011, this Hon'ble Court held :- From the result of such departmental proceeding it is crystal clear that company was not involved in any transaction which allegedly culminated in the violation of Sections 8(1) and 9(1) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 and as such further continuation of the proceeding against the present petitioner will be merely an abuse of the process of law as there is no chance of success of the prosecution in this case to prove the charges under Section 56 read with Section 68 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973. Therefore, I hold that there is sufficient merit in this revision application which is allowed to prevent the abuse the process of law and as such the instant proceeding is quashed and the petitioner is discharged. 12. That in light of this Hon'ble Court's Judgment allowing the revisi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as far back as 11 years ago. As such, any continuation of the complaint under section 68 of the Act would amount to abuse of the process of law. 17. That it may be apposite to state that under similar circumstances, this Hon'ble Court quashed case No. C-2479/2002 initiated by the Enforcement Directorate against the Company and the petitioner by its Judgment dated 10th November, 2010 in CRR No. 1174/2004. In that criminal complaint, the Company, along with individuals working for the Company such as the Petitioner, were prosecuted under Section 56 read with Section 68 of the Act for alleged contravention of Section 8(1) and 9(1) (a) of the Act. On the basis of the said alleged contravention, a civil proceeding was also initiated by the Enforcement Directorate. In the said civil proceeding, the company and the others were exonerated. The Hon'ble Court took notice of the fact that the Enforcement Directorate had exonerated the Company and its officers (including the Petitioner) of the charges that led to the aforesaid case No. C-2479/2002. This Hon'ble Court thereafter quashed case No. C-2479/2002 by its judgment dated 10th November, 2010. It is submitted that this judg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpany were charged for the violations allegedly committed by the company in terms of Section 68 of the FERA, 1973, the said charges can be stated to have been proved only in such a situation where the charge against the main noticee have been proved and hence no proceedings are warranted against the said noticees. Since the charges against ITC Ltd. had been not proved, the charges against the individual notices also fail automatically. ORDER Having regard to the findings and discussions hereinbefore, I hereby drop the proceedings against M/s. ITC Ltd., Noticee No. 1 in SCN No. T-4/18- C/97(SCN-XVIII) dated 31.3.1998 as the charges against the company in the SCN under consideration have not been proved on the basis of material evidences. Consequent upon the above, the charges against the individual noticees i.e. Noticee Nos. 2 to 15 are also dropped. Sd/- (S.K. PANDA) SPECIAL DIRECTOR 27. The company/accused no. 1 ITC Limited preferred a revision being CRR no. 1891 of 2004 before this court and in view of order dated 30.04.2008 of the Special Director, ED, the court quashed the proceedings in respect of the company alone, (the sole petiti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
